CBS News reported recently that remote work may pose risks for some workers: "Research shows it hurts their mental health." Remote work is wildly popular with some. Employers have reported struggles with finding and retaining in-office workers in a workforce acquainted with the slippers and sweats world of virtuality.
The mental health concerns are centered on "alone time" and the absence or minimization of human contact. This is characterized as the absence of "idle chitchat," speaking to a coworker, or even a "smile from a passerby." The quoted study noted that most workers have not "compensate(d) by socializing more outside of work hours."
The study also raises some questions. The conclusions are based, in part, on frequency of mental health provider visits and prevalence of psychiatric prescriptions. Some will argue that the data and premise are arguably not scientific proof of causation but of coincidence. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make you Think (August 2021);
There is a stark difference between coincidence or correlation (the presence of two findings) and causation (the conclusion that one resulted in the other). See Work Hours are Deadly? (June 2021); Disparity and Evolution (August 2024).
Nonetheless, some may conclude that there are mental health risks to isolation. During SARS-CoV-2, I once instructed a remote worker, simply, "go outside." Asked what they should do, I replied that it did not matter, but their persistent isolation indoors needed to end. I still think that was good advice. But I have never heard of an AI suggesting it. See Ya Jonesing Man? (March 2025). To be clear, I have no mental health counselor training, but everyone benefits from a break and some fresh air.
Workers' compensation systems across America take very different approaches to emotional complaints and allegations of injury. Some states, like Florida, require most employees to suffer a physical injury as a predicate for compensability of emotional injury. This is commonly referred to as a "physical mental" state. We had a great discussion of these intricacies at the SAWCA annual convention last week, comparing and contrasting four state perspectives.
There are states in which an emotional injury alone can be compensable, commonly labeled "mental/mental" states. These distinctions are discussed in The Debate of Mental Mental and PTSD (January 2017); More Rust (October 2022), and other posts noted there.
I have also noted the challenges of emotional health periodically and have made some suggestions that there are particular challenges to mental health in the modern world. See Mental Health News (September 2020); Emotional Health (October 2022); and AI and Mental Health (October 2023).
The overarching point is that there can be stress in the workplace. In physical/mental states, that stress will not generally be sufficient alone as a workers' compensation injury. Nonetheless, in states in which "mental/mental" injuries are compensable, the emotions of an employee may be a sufficient foundation for a workers' compensation claim.
How prevalent is this mental/mental? Researchers have struggled with quantifying because the various state requirements, definitions, presumptions, and burdens are quite different. Nonetheless, some research concludes that "mental-to-mental injury, an injury involving purely mental stimuli, may be eligible for compensation in 40 states."
That is not to say to all employees in those states. Several laws treat various occupations with different and disparate laws. Occupations with proficient lobbies and through extensive efforts have carved out special treatment for themselves. Those are policy decisions that intentionally treat workers differently.
So, we conclude with the risk of isolation. Being alone persistently may present significant risk of mental health effects. One might begin having conversations with inanimate objects like volleyballs, see Tom Hanks in Castaway (20th Century Fox, 2000). In fairness, many of us mutter to ourselves in the office.
Nonetheless, the work-at-home paradigm may increase that risk, particularly if the worker does not consciously strive for human contact elsewhere in their non-work time. And, as to the point in workers' compensation, the resulting emotional condition(s) may be compensable under some workers' compensation laws.
This could be an important point, the "some." It is practical for a worker to have potential entitlement in the state where a work accident happened (the home), where hired (might have made an acceptance by telephone from almost anywhere), where the employee lives, or even where the employer is located. An employer might face multiple potential exposures in one employee.
Might an employer find themself on the hook for compensating the employee for that non-work time spent socializing? If the mental health provider prescribes an evening out to socialize, a bowling league, or walks in the park, will the mental/mental states treat that differently than an orthopedic ordering physical therapy? Maybe the work-at-homer can get a script for a night or two on the town as "treatment?" Or maybe a trip to Aruba?
A final note is that workers' compensation laws tend to embrace events within a particular state, noted above. So do many workers' compensation insurance policies. Is that New Jersey employer covered for a mental health claim from its Illinois remote worker? Might the potential exist for a coverage dispute by a carrier purportedly unaware of what company payroll represents work in remote states?
It is a fair question to consider when explaining to the broker or issuer that you need coverage in the state where the employee is located. A company in Iowa with a work-at-homer in California may well face liability under the California workers' compensation law.
